The payout will continue to be in proportion to accomplishment for two reasons:

1) It's fair.

2) If it was limited, writers would make multiple accounts to get around a limit.

There is the issue that articles vary in quality. The payout is currently by the word because that is all we can measure. Eventually we'll get page view information for each article, then besides paying advertising in proportion to page views, there will also be a revenue boost in proportion to page views. The revenue boost would be from generation; because this would dilute generation shares the word earnings would be reduced in proportion.

For example, if the revenue boost was half of the writers earnings, to compensate, word earnings would be a generation share per 2,000 words. The overall payout would be half a generation share per thousand words for articles without views, one generation share per thousand words for articles with an average number of views per word, and more than a generation share per thousand words for articles with more than an average number of views per word. In order to avoid as much as possible giving writers with few page views a negative payout, the revenue boost would be phased in slowly, probably around 1%/month until it reaches 50% of the total.

Fair enough, just thinking about the spirit of what metazilla was referring to a few pages back and maintaining the interest of prospective contributors.

The payout is a function of how much is submitted. In this case a lot of stuff by few people.

I think it may make more sense to limit the total share per person from this month inclusive (and to make clear I'm not being biased, this month includes me. edit: actually I suppose that could hypothetically increase my share so could be construed as biased, but that's not the intent), something like X% for new contributors in their first month, X*2 (or X/2) in their second month etc (dependant on how and whether suubmissions grow/decline; those particular funtions are just plucked from the air to give an idea).

In this way it (1) doesn't penalise those who built up, maintain, inform and have already been regularly contributing to devtome and devcoin for some time, (2) better encourages new interesting articles, rather than just words, as the prospective new contributor share remains higher going forward (3) continues to encourage existing contributors to do so sooner rather than later (4) is likely to keep the standard higher (5) adheres better to the spirit of the process.

Just a thought.

I haven't put my writing up for this round yet - but regardless I don't think it's fair to change the rules halfway through a round. People will lose faith in Devcoin if the rules are changed willy nilly. Whatever happens it should take place at the start of a round - not near the end. Personally I don't see a problem with the current system.

Agreed, shares are still worth over 100$ at the moment.

I can see this model working even when shares drop to $5 each.

Yes, but it's far better when they are worth $100+, I think you need to realise this

I request a bounty for a clone of this application for devcoin. Stipulations would include open source being posted to devtome.com.

I suggest a 6 then 3 bounty.

Quote

Then additional shares can be given for each additional exchange that is added (one time).

I suggest 2 then 1 for the next two exchanges.

Quote

Additionally, I would like to see all of the coin options added to this site in time if possible (they should pull the same API information for each site) but since this would require a bit more work, it should also have another additional set of shares assigned for this function.

I suggest 2 then 1 for all other coin options.

Quote

But, at least devcoin should be present to receive any part of the bounty. I also suggest a recurring share for the hosting of the site if it is outside of the google apps hosting. This will help to facilitate further sales threads and sites built around devcoin for payments, or other alt currencies.

I suggest the typical hosting maintenance of 1/5 of a share ongoing, for the first two sites.

I request a bounty for a clone of this application for devcoin. Stipulations would include open source being posted to devtome.com.

Then additional shares can be given for each additional exchange that is added (one time). Additionally, I would like to see all of the coin options added to this site in time if possible (they should pull the same API information for each site) but since this would require a bit more work, it should also have another additional set of shares assigned for this function. But, at least devcoin should be present to receive any part of the bounty. I also suggest a recurring share for the hosting of the site if it is outside of the google apps hosting. This will help to facilitate further sales threads and sites built around devcoin for payments, or other alt currencies.

Yeah i'd like to see a bounty for this to, with the same requirements as specified above EDIT: and laid out by Unthinkingbit

does the site give out an API as well? or would / could that be an extra feature of the site and bounty?

1. The "Legal article regarding research chemicals" that I posted, was explained at the top, cited as not original, and had Attributions listed at the bottom. I had FinShaggy remove it for me anyway. I never intended to get paid for it anyway.

The payout is a function of how much is submitted. In this case a lot of stuff by few people.

I think it may make more sense to limit the total share per person from this month inclusive (and to make clear I'm not being biased, this month includes me. edit: actually I suppose that could hypothetically increase my share so could be construed as biased, but that's not the intent), something like X% for new contributors in their first month, X*2 (or X/2) in their second month etc (dependant on how and whether suubmissions grow/decline; those particular funtions are just plucked from the air to give an idea).

In this way it (1) doesn't penalise those who built up, maintain, inform and have already been regularly contributing to devtome and devcoin for some time, (2) better encourages new interesting articles, rather than just words, as the prospective new contributor share remains higher going forward (3) continues to encourage existing contributors to do so sooner rather than later (4) is likely to keep the standard higher (5) adheres better to the spirit of the process.

Just a thought.

I haven't put my writing up for this round yet - but regardless I don't think it's fair to change the rules halfway through a round. People will lose faith in Devcoin if the rules are changed willy nilly. Whatever happens it should take place at the start of a round - not near the end. Personally I don't see a problem with the current system.

Agreed, shares are still worth over 100$ at the moment.

I can see this model working even when shares drop to $5 each.

Yes, but it's far better when they are worth $100+, I think you need to realise this

Maybe it was better for the past year, and yes I would have like to have been involved when there were no publishers so I could have a stockpile of hundreds of thousands of coins.

But if we want the stockpiles and the individual coins themselves to raise in value we have to advertise them, and do what the jesus dino guy is doing and make stores and stuff.

The more people that know about DVC, and the harder it is to get lots of DVC, the more valuable they will be.

You think writers would make multiple accounts to get around limits but that they won't make clever use of curl and, for example, Tor or open proxies or whatever means they can find to cause pageviews artificially?

Come to think of it, generating pageviews is exatly what auto, as distinct from manual, page-surfing sites are for. I could fire up autosurf.com or whatever it or its hundreds of similar sites are, and sit my browser(s) all night auto-visiting pages one page every five or six seconds, generating pageview credits at 1:2 ratio so for each page any of my browsers (including ones I run in dummy, headless Xwindows on various third party hosting) visits nets half a pageview-credit, those credits being automatically spent to buy pageviews for my devtome pages.

This would have the benefit of increasing the Alexa rating of the devtome, which is the main reason such pageviews are valued, because even though my browsers don't report to Alexa the browsers of a whole lot of people whose browsers my credits pay to have visit devtome will be using Windows, and Windows browsers apparently do report the user's pageviews to Alexa automatically by default.

(Yes, windows browsers are a form of spyware! Surprised, anyone?)

So hmmmm y'know, maybe using autosurfs to up my pageviews wouldn't be the worst way I could do it, Clever use of curl would avoid giving devtome any Alexa-rating boost and still give me lots of pageviews...

I suspect we'd be best off sticking to using advertising, so that the whole problem of figuring out whether the visitors are genuine/valid or not is foisted off to a third party advertising-agency that has staff and routines etc for figuring that stuff out.

If we could get pay per impression ads instead of (or as well as) pay per clickthrough ads we'd still end up getting paid based on pageviews but the work of figuring out if the views are good would be done by a third party. (Or, we'd simply get our adsense account cancelled for having too many fake visitors... Hopefully adsense though would simply only give us pay per clickthrough ads and no pay per impression ones if it only thought our visitors were bogus not our actual clickthroughs...)

This Alexa thing though... Apparently it was valuable once upon a time and might still be valuable. Having a bunch of people run autosurf programs all day and night could get us a ton of autosurf credits we could use to drive Alexa-reporting browsers to devtome pages. Even if no one actually sees the pages, Alexa apparently didn't used to know that and maybe still won't know that.

(I am not up on current state of the art. Autosurfs when last I used them deliberately did not care whether you were actually watching, even though some manual-surf programs that give you credits for spending X number of seconds on a page actually stop the counter while you are switched to another desktop and restart it when you return to looking at your browser. Maybe by now Alexa (maybe with Microsfot's help) has found a way to detect traffic that is driven by autosurfs. Seems not all that likely though else SEO people would not still be using autosurfs to increase their google pagerank by means of increasing their Alexa ratings...)

1. The "Legal article regarding research chemicals" that I posted, was explained at the top, cited as not original, and had Attributions listed at the bottom. I had FinShaggy remove it for me anyway. I never intended to get paid for it anyway.

2. Why is my name not on the list of the script run on April 24th?

Even cited, you have to change the article considerably, or it's plagiarism. I had to delete a few things too.

1. The "Legal article regarding research chemicals" that I posted, was explained at the top, cited as not original, and had Attributions listed at the bottom. I had FinShaggy remove it for me anyway. I never intended to get paid for it anyway.

2. Why is my name not on the list of the script run on April 24th?

Even cited, you have to change the article considerably, or it's plagiarism. I had to delete a few things too.

That's fine, I just thought it kind of important knowledge. Perhaps there should be a section to put things that are completely excluded from the word count?? I can't change a legal article at all, or it is not the same. As I believe it was you said before, it would be like changing a diary.

1. The "Legal article regarding research chemicals" that I posted, was explained at the top, cited as not original, and had Attributions listed at the bottom. I had FinShaggy remove it for me anyway. I never intended to get paid for it anyway.

2. Why is my name not on the list of the script run on April 24th?

Even cited, you have to change the article considerably, or it's plagiarism. I had to delete a few things too.

That's fine, I just thought it kind of important knowledge. Perhaps there should be a section to put things that are completely excluded from the word count?? I can't change a legal article at all, or it is not the same. As I believe it was you said before, it would be like changing a diary.

But that still leaves my second question.

Why did my name not show up on the script run?

I haven't fixed mine yet, but what I decided to do was to eventually go back and re-cap what the legal article said in my own words. For example, mine was Supreme court decisions, so what I will do is go back and write dates and maybe a few quotes, but I will write summaries of "what happened" and "what was decided" in my own words.

We make for a few good reliable autosurf programs user-accounts for devtome.

These have multi-level, or at least one level anyway, of "referral credits" systems, so that if these devtome accounts on the autosurfs refer people to the autosurfs, they get a fraction of the credits earned by the people they refer (possibly even multiple levels down the downlines.)

A criteria for which autosurf(s) to use would that they must be ones whose reporting about your referrals reports how many credits each referral earns for you.

We then reward people in proportion to how many pageviews they cause these devtome accounts to earn.

Unfortunately we cannot know what sites or pages they themselves are spending their own credits on, so really this whole plan would be most useful to people who do have some use themselves for Alexa-reporting browser visits.

In relation to the ticker bounty. I suggest a standard published to devtome.com for all the major coding languages. And a bounty be awarded for each thorough and well sourced article. A new bounty should be assigned to each new language and should be in reference to each of the other pages on the devtome.com wiki.

There's a lot of different standards - but it's not too hard to come up with something that's cross-language.While it talks about node - only a few are nodejs specific. Any submitted solution should pass the languages lint processor (ala pyline, jslint, etc) and it's basically a standards based sanity check of code.

I wrote this in a hurry add whatever you think would be necessary, but I think considering the bounties that are being issued, we should have a jump off point such as the bitcoin standards.

Suggestion:(1) Pick a DNS name that will be the root name used by users & the dvc client for resolving seed nodes (long standing core dvc nodes that can help bootstrap new dvc nodes).(2) Use a DNS provides that's dev friendly, supports round-robin (RR) DNS entries and ideally already has (or plans to implement geoDNS) and under dvc "admin" control. You don't want to use DDNS (Dynamic DNS) for security reasons and getting into the whole IPSEC DNS is a can of worms.

Why:Simpler bootstrapping for new & existing users.Simpler management - host IP addresses will change over time (hosts go down, get moved, etc) - currently this requires a code change.(2) allows for the load to be distributed & using geoDNS allows for locally served updates - providing a quicker catchup & bootstrap time.

How:RR DNS entries are DNS A records that map from a hostname to an IP address.The existing dvc config file can be used with the DNS entries - using addnode one or more times using the dns name from (1)

The dvc client code can be updated to take advantage of the new scheme in a more intelligent way.In this case - the code does a DNS lookup for all records using (1) - resulting in a number of DNS A records. Each of these is then used the same way addnode currently works. You can see an example of this using nslookup & using "dvc.public.txn.co.in" where you'll see 2 records returned.

In addition - as it goes through each returned DNS A record:(a) it checks you have an IP from the lookup (making sure you have an A record & node something else like a cname)(b) the IP is valid & the host is responding - it records the lookup & the time the lookup happened(c) every n minutes (driven by the config file or the cli - ala devcoind dns-refresh) it repeats the cycle. This allows long standing nodes to refresh & reload these addresses without restarting the daemon.

1. The "Legal article regarding research chemicals" that I posted, was explained at the top, cited as not original, and had Attributions listed at the bottom. I had FinShaggy remove it for me anyway. I never intended to get paid for it anyway.

Anything in the original section of the invoice is totalled by the devtome.py script. It does not analyze the source text at all, it only counts the words.

You are basically starting to reinvent the DNS seed code, only not as complete as what it already does.

For dvc, the only real change that should be made, and maybe even the first usage till we make a decent dns seed supporting server, should be to move the finding of the sources of the receiver files to txt or srv records instead of hardcoding them as I posted a bit earlier.

You are basically starting to reinvent the DNS seed code, only not as complete as what it already does.

For dvc, the only real change that should be made, and maybe even the first change till we make a decent dns seed supporting server, should be to move the finding of the sources of the receiver files to txt or srv records instead of hardcoding them as I posted a bit earlier.

Not really - we're talking about 2 different things.I'm talking about replacing the existing hard coded IP addresses with DNS based lookups - these authoritative nodes help bootstrap the rest of the network.You're talking about the ddns DNS boostrap - which ultimately is a subdomain of the first. It's a worthwhile pursuit - but requires infrastructure and a balanced distribution to be effective. One of the reasons for IRC is that there already exists a well distributed network that can be used to leverage bootstrapping.